FDP, Justify Your 'What is Fact' is Really Real?

[FlashDangerpants]

...

None of that changes anything, I've already covered all of this.

The reason I am not offering some strict definition of knowledge and fact exactly means is because these are fluid and it doesn't work like adictionary definition. Nevertheless there is always some explanation for how we check whether a fact claim is true, by reference to what and so on.

Your realism thing is neither here nor there. Just as above, it just isn't neat like that. But you keep trying to analyse reality as if you were some outsider and that's just stupid. Reality is all this, what you see around us, and we are part of it, not exterrnal observers of it. None of this shit is going to do what you want it to.

Your FSK theory will forever fail because you are trying to create a contract covering what is fact and what is reality and then you are trying to exploit a loophole in that contract to let you fantasise bullshit into fact. The self-serving contract you are writing is never going to be countersigned by any humans though, nobody is falling for it today, nobody is falling for it tomorrow, and the day you die it will stop being thought about in any way.

If you cannot define your 'what is fact' nor 'what is reality', then you are groping with unreality and falsity.

All the important competing definitions for these things have merits. None is complete, completeness is probably not possible. Accepting this is better than fooling yourself with a fairy tale like yours.

As such, whatever critique you dump on my views, you don't have any credibility at all.

Unimportant. I would need credibility if I were in competition with you to provide definitions for knowledge and reality. I have explained plenty of times that I am not involved in that competition.

The mistakes I point out in your work are blindingly obvious. The failings of your case can be pointed out by any number of people, credibility is not required, which is nice, otherwsie we would need to define it and that would be bad for you.

If you ever can break out of your 'silo' you will understand the inevitable FSK and FSERC.

You keep trying to force me into one of these silos so that you can accuse me of being in a silo. Weird game.

Reality is all-there-is [as within the linguistic FSK] but to realize what is really real, I'd had introduced the Framework and System of Emergence and Reality [FSERC], the FSK or FSC is merely a FS that cognize, perceive and describe whatever emerged and is realized.

You seem unaware how mystical your FSK bullshit is.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

How can reality be verified and then described if there is nothing to that emerged to be verified and described?
So, we have to deal with the emergence and realization of reality within a FSERC.
This is of course beyond you, so I will not explain it to you.

You won't explain it to anyone. You are never going to write your book.

[Veritas Aequitas]

None of that changes anything, I've already covered all of this.
The reason I am not offering some strict definition of knowledge and fact exactly means is because these are fluid and it doesn't work like adictionary definition. Nevertheless there is always some explanation for how we check whether a fact claim is true, by reference to what and so on.

Your realism thing is neither here nor there. Just as above, it just isn't neat like that. But you keep trying to analyse reality as if you were some outsider and that's just stupid. Reality is all this, what you see around us, and we are part of it, not exterrnal observers of it. None of this shit is going to do what you want it to.

Your FSK theory will forever fail because you are trying to create a contract covering what is fact and what is reality and then you are trying to exploit a loophole in that contract to let you fantasise bullshit into fact. The self-serving contract you are writing is never going to be countersigned by any humans though, nobody is falling for it today, nobody is falling for it tomorrow, and the day you die it will stop being thought about in any way.

If you cannot define your 'what is fact' nor 'what is reality', then you are groping with unreality and falsity.

All the important competing definitions for these things have merits. None is complete, completeness is probably not possible. Accepting this is better than fooling yourself with a fairy tale like yours.

As such, whatever critique you dump on my views, you don't have any credibility at all.

Unimportant. I would need credibility if I were in competition with you to provide definitions for knowledge and reality. I have explained plenty of times that I am not involved in that competition.

The mistakes I point out in your work are blindingly obvious. The failings of your case can be pointed out by any number of people, credibility is not required, which is nice, otherwsie we would need to define it and that would be bad for you.

If you ever can break out of your 'silo' you will understand the inevitable FSK and FSERC.

You keep trying to force me into one of these silos so that you can accuse me of being in a silo. Weird game.

Reality is all-there-is [as within the linguistic FSK] but to realize what is really real, I'd had introduced the Framework and System of Emergence and Reality [FSERC], the FSK or FSC is merely a FS that cognize, perceive and describe whatever emerged and is realized.

You seem unaware how mystical your FSK bullshit is.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

How can reality be verified and then described if there is nothing to that emerged to be verified and described?
So, we have to deal with the emergence and realization of reality within a FSERC.
This is of course beyond you, so I will not explain it to you.

You won't explain it to anyone. You are never going to write your book.

You are still running away from justifying your basis of 'what is reality'.

The mistakes I point out in your work are blindingly obvious. The failings of your case can be pointed out by any number of people, credibility is not required, which is nice, otherwsie we would need to define it and that would be bad for you.

That is kicking your own ass, an ad populum fallacy is not valid especially from those who are grounding their reality on an illusion as with philosophical realism.

You are still running away from justifying your basis of 'what is reality'.

[FlashDangerpants]

...

None of that changes anything, I've already covered all of this.

The reason I am not offering some strict definition of knowledge and fact exactly means is because these are fluid and it doesn't work like a dictionary definition. Nevertheless there is always some explanation for how we check whether a fact claim is true, by reference to what and so on.

Your realism thing is neither here nor there. Just as above, it just isn't neat like that. But you keep trying to analyse reality as if you were some outsider and that's just stupid. Reality is all this, what you see around us, and we are part of it, not external observers of it. None of this shit is going to do what you want it to.

Your FSK theory will forever fail because you are trying to create a contract covering what is fact and what is reality and then you are trying to exploit a loophole in that contract to let you fantasise bullshit into fact. The self-serving contract you are writing is never going to be countersigned by any humans though, nobody is falling for it today, nobody is falling for it tomorrow, and the day you die it will stop being thought about in any way.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...

None of that changes anything, I've already covered all of this.

The reason I am not offering some strict definition of knowledge and fact exactly means is because these are fluid and it doesn't work like a dictionary definition. Nevertheless there is always some explanation for how we check whether a fact claim is true, by reference to what and so on.

Your realism thing is neither here nor there. Just as above, it just isn't neat like that. But you keep trying to analyse reality as if you were some outsider and that's just stupid. Reality is all this, what you see around us, and we are part of it, not external observers of it. None of this shit is going to do what you want it to.

Your FSK theory will forever fail because you are trying to create a contract covering what is fact and what is reality and then you are trying to exploit a loophole in that contract to let you fantasise bullshit into fact. The self-serving contract you are writing is never going to be countersigned by any humans though, nobody is falling for it today, nobody is falling for it tomorrow, and the day you die it will stop being thought about in any way.

This is a philosophy forum, so it is understood you have to justify your 'what is reality' on a philosophical approach with valid and sound arguments supported by the relevant authorities and references.

I have justified and explained my 'What is a FSK'
What is a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]?
viewtopic.php?t=43232
with loads of supporting arguments and related matters in this forum as follow;
[you have not provided any convincing counters to the below] - don't expect your little mind to be able to do so.

• FSK is More Advanced than the P. Realism Approach
  What is a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]?
  No Infinite Regress for a FSK
  FSK is Not My Invention
  The Regress of the Ranking of FS
  Why the Scientific FS is the Most Credible & Objective
  Scientific FS More Realistic than Linguistic/Logic FS
  What Facts are not Contingent to a FS?
  Wittgenstein Language Games is a FSK
  Syllogism for Moral Facts re Moral FSERC PH
  How: From Non-Moral Premise to Moral Premise
  A FRSC is Not Constructed Literally
  PH Counter VA re FSRC
  Understanding FSRC via Deep Learning
  W On Certainty is a Subset of the FSRC
  Relativism, Contextualism, Perspectivism & FSRC
  Isaiah Berlin, Kant & FRSC
  All Knowledge Grounded on a Specific FSK
  Feyman: Need a Framework to Support Truth
  PH: Your FSRK Theory is Just Wrong
  Why FSC Cognition over FSK Knowledge?
  FSRK = Language Games?
  Why is Physics [FSK] 'More Objective' than Astrology?
  The Scientific Framework & System of Reality & Knowledge
  What is the FSK of a FSK?
  FSK-dependent Moral Universalism Bard
  Values are FSK-ed Objective
  FSK-ed Objectivity is "Garbage" Objectivity??
  Objectivity: Science vs Theology Rated -degrees of Objectivity
  Linking 'The-Described" to its Description? FSK
  How PH ‘What is Fact’ can be FSK-ed Post
  Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
  FSK-ed Moral Facts from Scientific Facts
  Argument for FSK-ed Objectivity FDP
  PH: FSKs are Worthless
  FSERC: Emergence & Realization
  Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
  Is the Evaluating FSK more credible than the Scientific FSK
  viewtopic.php?p=658645#p658645
  The Christianity Moral FSK is the Most Effective at Present
  No Humans = no FSK-ed Reality
  viewtopic.php?t=40180
  What Source of Knowledge is More Credible than Science?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40044
  The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
  All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39918
  Hawking's Goldfish's FSK
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39928
  A FSK-Conditioned Fact as a Composite State-of-Affairs
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39682
  FSK Conditioned Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39405
  What is a Moral Framework and System? [FSK]
  What is a [FSK-ed] Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
  Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
  What is Emergence & Realization re FSERC
  viewtopic.php?t=40721
  Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing: perceive
  viewtopic.php?t=40715

[FlashDangerpants]

...

None of that changes anything, I've already covered all of this.

The reason I am not offering some strict definition of knowledge and fact exactly means is because these are fluid and it doesn't work like a dictionary definition. Nevertheless there is always some explanation for how we check whether a fact claim is true, by reference to what and so on.

Your realism thing is neither here nor there. Just as above, it just isn't neat like that. But you keep trying to analyse reality as if you were some outsider and that's just stupid. Reality is all this, what you see around us, and we are part of it, not external observers of it. None of this shit is going to do what you want it to.

Your FSK theory will forever fail because you are trying to create a contract covering what is fact and what is reality and then you are trying to exploit a loophole in that contract to let you fantasise bullshit into fact. The self-serving contract you are writing is never going to be countersigned by any humans though, nobody is falling for it today, nobody is falling for it tomorrow, and the day you die it will stop being thought about in any way.

This is a philosophy forum, so it is understood you have to justify your 'what is reality' on a philosophical approach with valid and sound arguments supported by the relevant authorities and references.

I am right, it defies that form of justification and is instead the justification for other things.

If you had read Wittgenstein in order to understand the big W guy instead of selfishly to enslave his ghost to your cause, you would understand me better. But you don't actually care what I think, you've made that obvious. you are just pissy because somebody says you are wrong and until I am dead too you can't pretend I always agreed with you.

It has been noted before that you have a magical way of finding out that all the dead philosophers agree you, even though none of the living ones know you exist.

I have justified and explained my 'What is a FSK'
What is a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]?
viewtopic.php?t=43232
with loads of supporting arguments and related matters in this forum as follow;
[you have not provided any convincing counters to the below] - don't expect your little mind to be able to do so.

• FSK is More Advanced than the P. Realism Approach
  What is a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]?
  No Infinite Regress for a FSK
  FSK is Not My Invention
  The Regress of the Ranking of FS
  Why the Scientific FS is the Most Credible & Objective
  Scientific FS More Realistic than Linguistic/Logic FS
  What Facts are not Contingent to a FS?
  Wittgenstein Language Games is a FSK
  Syllogism for Moral Facts re Moral FSERC PH
  How: From Non-Moral Premise to Moral Premise
  A FRSC is Not Constructed Literally
  PH Counter VA re FSRC
  Understanding FSRC via Deep Learning
  W On Certainty is a Subset of the FSRC
  Relativism, Contextualism, Perspectivism & FSRC
  Isaiah Berlin, Kant & FRSC
  All Knowledge Grounded on a Specific FSK
  Feyman: Need a Framework to Support Truth
  PH: Your FSRK Theory is Just Wrong
  Why FSC Cognition over FSK Knowledge?
  FSRK = Language Games?
  Why is Physics [FSK] 'More Objective' than Astrology?
  The Scientific Framework & System of Reality & Knowledge
  What is the FSK of a FSK?
  FSK-dependent Moral Universalism Bard
  Values are FSK-ed Objective
  FSK-ed Objectivity is "Garbage" Objectivity??
  Objectivity: Science vs Theology Rated -degrees of Objectivity
  Linking 'The-Described" to its Description? FSK
  How PH ‘What is Fact’ can be FSK-ed Post
  Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
  FSK-ed Moral Facts from Scientific Facts
  Argument for FSK-ed Objectivity FDP
  PH: FSKs are Worthless
  FSERC: Emergence & Realization
  Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
  Is the Evaluating FSK more credible than the Scientific FSK
  viewtopic.php?p=658645#p658645
  The Christianity Moral FSK is the Most Effective at Present
  No Humans = no FSK-ed Reality
  viewtopic.php?t=40180
  What Source of Knowledge is More Credible than Science?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40044
  The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
  All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39918
  Hawking's Goldfish's FSK
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39928
  A FSK-Conditioned Fact as a Composite State-of-Affairs
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39682
  FSK Conditioned Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39405
  What is a Moral Framework and System? [FSK]
  What is a [FSK-ed] Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
  Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
  What is Emergence & Realization re FSERC
  viewtopic.php?t=40721
  Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing: perceive
  viewtopic.php?t=40715

All of those are shit. Your FSK thing entails that anything that is created by an FSK becomes an FSK-fact. That's stupid. You cannot manufacture enough bullshit to cover that up.

[Veritas Aequitas]

None of that changes anything, I've already covered all of this.

The reason I am not offering some strict definition of knowledge and fact exactly means is because these are fluid and it doesn't work like a dictionary definition. Nevertheless there is always some explanation for how we check whether a fact claim is true, by reference to what and so on.

Your realism thing is neither here nor there. Just as above, it just isn't neat like that. But you keep trying to analyse reality as if you were some outsider and that's just stupid. Reality is all this, what you see around us, and we are part of it, not external observers of it. None of this shit is going to do what you want it to.

Your FSK theory will forever fail because you are trying to create a contract covering what is fact and what is reality and then you are trying to exploit a loophole in that contract to let you fantasise bullshit into fact. The self-serving contract you are writing is never going to be countersigned by any humans though, nobody is falling for it today, nobody is falling for it tomorrow, and the day you die it will stop being thought about in any way.

This is a philosophy forum, so it is understood you have to justify your 'what is reality' on a philosophical approach with valid and sound arguments supported by the relevant authorities and references.

I am right, it defies that form of justification and is instead the justification for other things.

If you had read Wittgenstein in order to understand the big W guy instead of selfishly to enslave his ghost to your cause, you would understand me better. But you don't actually care what I think, you've made that obvious. you are just pissy because somebody says you are wrong and until I am dead too you can't pretend I always agreed with you.

It has been noted before that you have a magical way of finding out that all the dead philosophers agree you, even though none of the living ones know you exist.

I have justified and explained my 'What is a FSK'
What is a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]?
viewtopic.php?t=43232
with loads of supporting arguments and related matters in this forum as follow;
[you have not provided any convincing counters to the below] - don't expect your little mind to be able to do so.

• FSK is More Advanced than the P. Realism Approach
  What is a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]?
  No Infinite Regress for a FSK
  FSK is Not My Invention
  The Regress of the Ranking of FS
  Why the Scientific FS is the Most Credible & Objective
  Scientific FS More Realistic than Linguistic/Logic FS
  What Facts are not Contingent to a FS?
  Wittgenstein Language Games is a FSK
  Syllogism for Moral Facts re Moral FSERC PH
  How: From Non-Moral Premise to Moral Premise
  A FRSC is Not Constructed Literally
  PH Counter VA re FSRC
  Understanding FSRC via Deep Learning
  W On Certainty is a Subset of the FSRC
  Relativism, Contextualism, Perspectivism & FSRC
  Isaiah Berlin, Kant & FRSC
  All Knowledge Grounded on a Specific FSK
  Feyman: Need a Framework to Support Truth
  PH: Your FSRK Theory is Just Wrong
  Why FSC Cognition over FSK Knowledge?
  FSRK = Language Games?
  Why is Physics [FSK] 'More Objective' than Astrology?
  The Scientific Framework & System of Reality & Knowledge
  What is the FSK of a FSK?
  FSK-dependent Moral Universalism Bard
  Values are FSK-ed Objective
  FSK-ed Objectivity is "Garbage" Objectivity??
  Objectivity: Science vs Theology Rated -degrees of Objectivity
  Linking 'The-Described" to its Description? FSK
  How PH ‘What is Fact’ can be FSK-ed Post
  Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
  FSK-ed Moral Facts from Scientific Facts
  Argument for FSK-ed Objectivity FDP
  PH: FSKs are Worthless
  FSERC: Emergence & Realization
  Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
  Is the Evaluating FSK more credible than the Scientific FSK
  viewtopic.php?p=658645#p658645
  The Christianity Moral FSK is the Most Effective at Present
  No Humans = no FSK-ed Reality
  viewtopic.php?t=40180
  What Source of Knowledge is More Credible than Science?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40044
  The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
  All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39918
  Hawking's Goldfish's FSK
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39928
  A FSK-Conditioned Fact as a Composite State-of-Affairs
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39682
  FSK Conditioned Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39405
  What is a Moral Framework and System? [FSK]
  What is a [FSK-ed] Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
  Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
  What is Emergence & Realization re FSERC
  viewtopic.php?t=40721
  Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing: perceive
  viewtopic.php?t=40715

All of those are shit. Your FSK thing entails that anything that is created by an FSK becomes an FSK-fact. That's stupid. You cannot manufacture enough bullshit to cover that up.

Blabbering as usual and running away from justifying the grounds you are standing on re what is reality.
I have done my part, it is up to those who disagree to counter convincingly; I suggest use AI and giving it the full context.

[FlashDangerpants]

...

None of that changes anything, I've already covered all of this.

The reason I am not offering some strict definition of knowledge and fact exactly means is because these are fluid and it doesn't work like a dictionary definition. Nevertheless there is always some explanation for how we check whether a fact claim is true, by reference to what and so on.

Your realism thing is neither here nor there. Just as above, it just isn't neat like that. But you keep trying to analyse reality as if you were some outsider and that's just stupid. Reality is all this, what you see around us, and we are part of it, not external observers of it. None of this shit is going to do what you want it to.

Your FSK theory will forever fail because you are trying to create a contract covering what is fact and what is reality and then you are trying to exploit a loophole in that contract to let you fantasise bullshit into fact. The self-serving contract you are writing is never going to be countersigned by any humans though, nobody is falling for it today, nobody is falling for it tomorrow, and the day you die it will stop being thought about in any way.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your FSK theory will forever fail because you are trying to create a contract covering what is fact and what is reality and then you are trying to exploit a loophole in that contract to let you fantasise bullshit into fact. The self-serving contract you are writing is never going to be countersigned by any humans though, nobody is falling for it today, nobody is falling for it tomorrow, and the day you die it will stop being thought about in any way.

You are so ignorant, shallow and narrow confined to a tall dark silo of philosophy.

As I had stated the concept and practice of a FS is a very common thing albeit they are not refine, precise and rigorous.

Here is one reference that support my thesis but it is not refine, precise and rigorous as my thesis re FSK and FSERC.

Objectivity
by Guy Axtell
https://www.amazon.com/Objectivity-Key- ... 0745662218
Guy Axtell is Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Radford University

ChatGpt

In the introduction to Objectivity, Guy Axtell examines the multifaceted debates surrounding the concept of objectivity, particularly emphasizing its contested nature across various domains, including science, ethics, and law.
He aims to guide readers through these discussions and contribute by articulating the domain-variance of norms of objectivity and their different functions for inquirers.
Ref:PhilPapers
Axtell's approach involves developing a pragmatic pluralist account of objectivity, which acknowledges the interplay between epistemic and social values in the course of inquiry.
This perspective suggests that objectivity is not a monolithic concept but varies across different fields and practices.
Ref: PhilPapers
While the introduction does not explicitly mention a "framework and system approach," Axtell's discussion implies a structured analysis of objectivity that considers various frameworks and systems within which objectivity is understood and applied.
By addressing the underdetermination problem and the interaction of epistemic and social values, he sets the stage for a nuanced exploration of objectivity that resonates with a framework and system approach. ChatGpt

Axtell from an ANTI-philosopical realists' position discussed the variations in objectivity across various domains and even the FS of a pie tasting contest and how it is rated and its objectivity.
However, Axtell did not go into depth re weightages for the criteria to be used in a pie-tasting contest, thus not as rigorous as me dealing with the subject.
In general, Axtell objective aligns with my FS concept of objectivity.

This expose you as an ignorant fool with your below comment on this subject,
FDP: The self-serving contract you are writing is never going to be countersigned by any humans though, nobody is falling for it today, nobody is falling for it tomorrow,

[Atla]

There's pie-tasting [gnat] and then there's pie-tasting-proper [PhD level].

[FlashDangerpants]

In general, Axtell objective aligns with my FS concept of objectivity.

In general he might, sort of. But if you contact him and tell him that with his assitance you have developed a moality-proper that is 90% as credible as science and thank him for helping you prove it, he won't be as enthusiastic about that as you like to daydream.

This expose you as an ignorant fool with your below comment on this subject,
FDP: The self-serving contract you are writing is never going to be countersigned by any humans though, nobody is falling for it today, nobody is falling for it tomorrow,

It's true, sorry but there's no way that ANY human being could be persuaded by your FSK theory when you aren't hiding the raving mad bits. Get this Axtell to come to PN and say otherwise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In general, Axtell objective aligns with my FS concept of objectivity.

In general he might, sort of. But if you contact him and tell him that with his assitance you have developed a moality-proper that is 90% as credible as science and thank him for helping you prove it, he won't be as enthusiastic about that as you like to daydream.

This expose you as an ignorant fool with your below comment on this subject,
FDP: The self-serving contract you are writing is never going to be countersigned by any humans though, nobody is falling for it today, nobody is falling for it tomorrow,

It's true, sorry but there's no way that ANY human being could be persuaded by your FSK theory when you aren't hiding the raving mad bits. Get this Axtell to come to PN and say otherwise.

The argument is you ignorantly declare there is no one in the world that share the ideas of my FSK thesis.
The above is evidence of a counter point that explodes and bursts your bubble of ignorance.

I am optimistic Axtell will agree with my transmutation of realities between different FS if I can contact him.

[FlashDangerpants]

In general, Axtell objective aligns with my FS concept of objectivity.

In general he might, sort of. But if you contact him and tell him that with his assitance you have developed a moality-proper that is 90% as credible as science and thank him for helping you prove it, he won't be as enthusiastic about that as you like to daydream.

This expose you as an ignorant fool with your below comment on this subject,
FDP: The self-serving contract you are writing is never going to be countersigned by any humans though, nobody is falling for it today, nobody is falling for it tomorrow,

It's true, sorry but there's no way that ANY human being could be persuaded by your FSK theory when you aren't hiding the raving mad bits. Get this Axtell to come to PN and say otherwise.

The argument is you ignorantly declare there is no one in the world that share the ideas of my FSK thesis.
The above is evidence of a counter point that explodes and bursts your bubble of ignorance.

I am optimistic Axtell will agree with my transmutation of realities between different FS if I can contact him.

Nobody in the world will accept that these FSK things create the facts they describe.
Nobody in the world will accept that these FSK things create actual measurements of the phenomena (such as a count with +-5% showing the numerical value of evils attached to a certain act)
Nobody in the world will ever agree with your FSK for sorting FSKs

Your optimism, like all your previous vapid expressions of confidence is irrelevant. He's alive, you have no excuse.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In general he might, sort of. But if you contact him and tell him that with his assitance you have developed a moality-proper that is 90% as credible as science and thank him for helping you prove it, he won't be as enthusiastic about that as you like to daydream.


It's true, sorry but there's no way that ANY human being could be persuaded by your FSK theory when you aren't hiding the raving mad bits. Get this Axtell to come to PN and say otherwise.

The argument is you ignorantly declare there is no one in the world that share the ideas of my FSK thesis.
The above is evidence of a counter point that explodes and bursts your bubble of ignorance.

I am optimistic Axtell will agree with my transmutation of realities between different FS if I can contact him.

Nobody in the world will accept that these FSK things create the facts they describe.
Nobody in the world will accept that these FSK things create actual measurements of the phenomena (such as a count with +-5% showing the numerical value of evils attached to a certain act)
Nobody in the world will ever agree with your FSK for sorting FSKs

Your optimism, like all your previous vapid expressions of confidence is irrelevant. He's alive, you have no excuse.

Your arrogance merely reflect your ignorance within your tall dark silo.

[FlashDangerpants]

The argument is you ignorantly declare there is no one in the world that share the ideas of my FSK thesis.
The above is evidence of a counter point that explodes and bursts your bubble of ignorance.

I am optimistic Axtell will agree with my transmutation of realities between different FS if I can contact him.

Nobody in the world will accept that these FSK things create the facts they describe.
Nobody in the world will accept that these FSK things create actual measurements of the phenomena (such as a count with +-5% showing the numerical value of evils attached to a certain act)
Nobody in the world will ever agree with your FSK for sorting FSKs

Your optimism, like all your previous vapid expressions of confidence is irrelevant. He's alive, you have no excuse.

Your arrogance merely reflect your ignorance within your tall dark silo.

If I am in the same place as everybody except you, and you are alone in a tube, then it is not me that is in the tall dark silo it is you.

Nobody in the world will accept that these FSK things create the facts they describe.
Nobody in the world will accept that these FSK things create actual measurements of the phenomena (such as a count with +-5% showing the numerical value of evils attached to a certain act)
Nobody in the world will ever agree with your FSK for sorting FSKs


You will never contact Axtell and explain your FSK theory.

[Atla]

Well there is a group that might take interest in the FSK thing: religious fundamentalists. For example one could use two FSKs: the Quran-FSK and an FSK-rating-FSK that rates the Quran-FSK at 100% and other stuff below 30%. So this way the Quran-FSK produces absolutely true facts. Works for any religion.